Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Widewing on April 14, 2007, 02:21:30 PM
-
Here's three shots of the three major terrains from AH1 thru today.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH1-111.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-209.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-210.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
sniff
ozkansas.
I think i'm gonna cry
:cry
-
I miss ozkansas!:cry :cry :cry :cry :cry
-
sad thing is, other than the ocean colour and lower res textures, ah 1 looks best .
and the latest version looks like your flying around a post apocalyptic world.
-
man the old stuff was way better!:aok
-
Greetings,
Just curious. Do you have any old pics at above 20k in an FSO or Scenario?
Last night I noticed it was much easier to see the horizon with the new terrain.
Regards,
-
Hmm I seem to be a member of the minority, but I do really like the new ocean. Looks cold and deadly and somehow more "wet". Certainly more appropriate for upcoming CT, the North Sea and the Channel don't look like our good old blue "paradise" ocean ;)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
sad thing is, other than the ocean colour and lower res textures, ah 1 looks best .
and the latest version looks like your flying around a post apocalyptic world.
Yup.
Put the new ocean in AH1, and make them hi-res textures, would be far and away the best.
-
Here's three shots of the three major terrains from AH1 thru today.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH1-111.jpg)
1999 to 2004 to get to this point ( around 5 years of revisions )
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-209.jpg)
2004 to 2007 ( not quite 3 years to get to this point )
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-210.jpg)
( less than 6 months to get to this point )
give or take a few months here or there......
I think AH1 looks best as far as terrain goes, but we are just now beginning to see what can be done with the new AH2 engine, will be awesome sooner than the 1st five years it took in AH1....me thinks anyhow
-
I miss AH1 :cry :cry
-
i have all the motivation I will ever need to start my own terrain project and I am starting it right this minute.
my only snag is it will take 25 hours to download the existing terrain editor the link is haywire.
I am pretty damned depressed about the new version but I am not gonna just mope around waiting for it to be fixed. I have been waiting for a time when the terrain engine far enough along and that seems to be now.
so away I go with FesterMA2 it will be an ETO themed map and if it is a success I will then create Ozkansas2 a PTO map.
so if anyone has a copy of the terrain editor they could post it would be appreciated.
-
Ah1 had alright ground detail.
ah2.09 had bright cartoon color ground, up high it was endless miles of farm land & blown up barns.
No "or very* few" roads going to or from them.
At least now we have roads, good looking ones at that.
with light* clutter all around to make the ground look as if humans worked thru it,making roads building/towns .ect
How many farms do you see made on the side of a hill?
and how many time could one fly over the same burned out,blasted out red barn?
Yes, it is dark and hopefully that will get changed.
More lightness, and a few* more ground bush's for more cover.
Thats about it,IMHO.
-
My friedns, this is a proof that...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
-
To shoot down opposing aircraft when the contrast is just right....and you don't lose the target in the dark trees...especially when his aircraft is painted to blend in with the terrain?
No?
If this isn't the case, then HTC should immediatly cease all skinning of aircraft and disallow any player input into this game....and simply suggest that all players shoot down the brightly colored planes which will henceforth be painted high visibility orange.
Just a thought....carry on!
-
screen shot 1 : too bright.
screen shot 2 : too bright + washed out
screen shot 3 : almost correct.
-
"almost correct", i.e. "too dark".
For equal brightness deviations, the game is better off too bright than too dark.
-
Originally posted by straffo
screen shot 1 : too bright.
screen shot 2 : too bright + washed out
screen shot 3 : almost correct.
Screen shot 1: No gamma adjustment
Screen shot 2: In-game gamma at 1.4
Screen shot 3: In-game gamma at 1.7
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing it's strange , you should not need any in game correction to have result 3.
I don't need to make in game gamma correction to have picture 3 and currently I've a quite cheap Bellinea 10 19 27 (since the death of my eizo :( ) and it's not the best for colour stability and it's inability to render colour correctly without calibration is quite annoying.
-
I pushed my gamma up to 1.7 And it made a world of diffrence
Tsnow
-
well, i've only been on AH2 foir somewhere in the ballpark of a year or less.......but could we use one of the olders versions for the ground.....but iwth the new V-bases, Air bases, and beaches?
i've noticed that my depth perception is VERY poor with this newer one.
also, it looks a bit "cheesy" from the air......and PLEASE don't take me the wrong way.....just offering my 2 cents.......
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Screen shot 1: No gamma adjustment
Screen shot 2: In-game gamma at 1.4
Screen shot 3: In-game gamma at 1.7
My regards,
Widewing
my gamma is at 2.2, and the ground is still way too dark, with no depth.....from the air, or in a GV.......:eek:
-
Where did you setup your 2.2 gamma ?
In game of in your video driver ?
-
i set that setting under the options menu in the game.........
-
The only two things that I don't like about this game:
The checkerboard terrain.. (I know it's a little better now, but it still looks the same in some areas)
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t202/satelliteio33/ahss131.jpg)
And the 2 dimentional clouds..
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t202/satelliteio33/ahss69.jpg)
-
AH1 looks the best. Has there been any comment from the brass on this issue?
-
what i like about Ah1 is that the terain doesnt look copy and pasted. if you look and 2 and now the beaches look all the same and in 2 you can see that the patern. i still havent figured out what the green blobs are when you are flying high you see a flat green gorund and the darker green blobs. when you look in the picture of now look in the far right hand corner and there is nothing there. it looks like a big grassy plane. i think the fields are beautiful but once you get away from the fields it looks like they got really lazy in some spots.
overall i think the fields in now are the best the beaches can stay and terain in 2 looks the best overall.
but thats me.
-
i like the terrain...there needs to be a little work on depth perception...find myself augering quite a bit...i really want to see donut, trinity, and ozkansas back...we have about 200 in each LW arena on low #s and 420-450 on the high times...when the numbers hit 500 on prime time and 250 on low i bet HT will give us a large map
-
Maybe part of the problem is trying to make a good terrain for ground units. AH1 looked lousy on the ground but great from the air, just the opposite of what it is now.
-
Those three pictures really doesn't do justice for the previous and current versions of AH2. The only reason the AH1 pic looks great, is because Widewing caught a great 'photo-realistic' angle shot from a player-made terrain using player-made textures. For those of you who hadn't seen AH1, trust me, it doesn't look that good. Especially, the default HTC made terrains look a lot worse off.
The same could be said about the current terrain. The texture tones and colors should be adjusted, but a lot of the awkward feeling comes not from terrain itself, but from the fact (IMO) that the terrain wasn't really "designed", but rather converted from the old format to new format.
IMO the quick-converted NDisles in the MA currently, probably shows less than 50% potential of what the new terrains can really do if a map was really designed from scratch.
-
well it motivated me to get busy on my own new ah2 main arena so it can't be all bad.
besides its just the textures that need work. waffle did an awsome job on the 3d objects and hills and hedgerows. I can forgive him for throwing the textures together at the last minute :D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Those three pictures really doesn't do justice for the previous and current versions of AH2. The only reason the AH1 pic looks great, is because Widewing caught a great 'photo-realistic' angle shot from a player-made terrain using player-made textures. For those of you who hadn't seen AH1, trust me, it doesn't look that good. Especially, the default HTC made terrains look a lot worse off.
Just to back up what Kweassa is saying.
Here's a screen shot of a stock AH1 terrain (mindnao) from version 1.11 taken not 5 minutes ago...
(http://www.brewsterbuffalos.com/htc/ah111.jpg)
I do however find the shore lines strikingly similar to the new shore lines.
Now if you really want to get into what can be done with the TE, how's this? ....
(http://www.brewsterbuffalos.com/htc/ss2.jpg)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it WILL be done.
-
My opinion, "I think" this release was all about ground vehicles.
Sherman firefly, reworked guns, damage modeling, the works right.
And I'm guessing he reworked the terrain to be GV friendly.
There is no seeing a GV dot at 6K with these settings from the air.
At one point I jumped offline, and the dark green terrain didn't seem as dark a green. So I took a screenshot, went online to same map, same everything, took another screenshot. Offline was significantly lighter in side by side pictures.
Since I was curious, I created a 8player host and started walking through the arena settings.
I'll tell you right now its NOT easy, and the one thing I wanted most to do was turn the sun effects back up a bit I couldn't do.
But, by the time I was done just adjusting the arena color settings.
I could see again.
However, the Dark green predominate on the terrain needs to be lightened.
Its TOO dark, its too close to the tree color, you can't distinquish them until they are in your windshield. The sunlight needs to be turned back up.
I don't care if planes can see ground vehicles. This is Aces High, not Tank Wars.
Lighten up the sky color, its almost purple. Looks like late sunset when its high noon. Lighten up the haze color from blue/purple to a bit more gray.
And set it farther out.
Conclusions, it needs changes, fixes, adaptations, and because he did it all specifically for the GV's, we are not going to get them.
-
Granted I think the terrain is a bit dark, I think its an improvement IMO. The old terrain wasn as eye sore with random trees in poor looking hedgerows.
Sure any terrain looks 'good' from afar at 10,000 feet. But when you're on the deck I've seen better ground trees in games likes US Navy Fighers '97. Plus I didn't need to see a farm every 3 acres.
I've played many of games in the past and been a part of many gaming communities and there are few times when a change is made to a game that it is embraced by open arms (no matter if it was truely a good change or a bad change). Granted not as many people cry for change in this community as in ones I've been a part of in the past.
The simplified terrain is about the only way to attempt to please the majority. A lot of pilots are not running top of the line machinse and to graphically make a more eye pleasing terrain, a simplified texture is needed. Now if this was a single player game, I bet HTC would have put in a lot of more graphical options to custom tailor the fan base, but since its a massive online flight sim you need to cut back on detail. Think of how many MMORPGs are low detail compared to counterparts that are singleplayer.
-
I have played around adjusting everything i can think of to adjust, some people are getting headachs, i get eye strian, after 30 minutes or so my eyes are burning, I like the new stuff, but the shading has got to get fixed, im sure it will be soon we get some sort of adjustment.
it's good stuff we got in this update, more will be coming, i read Fester is going to rework some maps, every thing will get back to a happy medium in time, but it will take time, Hopefully they will address the shadeing issues in a patch or by tweeking the arena settings but i think the biggest problem is a new system on old maps which someone had said earlier.
For me, I like the changes, but hope they do something with the contrast and the shadeing b4 my eyes burn out of my head.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Those three pictures really doesn't do justice for the previous and current versions of AH2. The only reason the AH1 pic looks great, is because Widewing caught a great 'photo-realistic' angle shot from a player-made terrain using player-made textures. For those of you who hadn't seen AH1, trust me, it doesn't look that good. Especially, the default HTC made terrains look a lot worse off.
The same could be said about the current terrain. The texture tones and colors should be adjusted, but a lot of the awkward feeling comes not from terrain itself, but from the fact (IMO) that the terrain wasn't really "designed", but rather converted from the old format to new format.
IMO the quick-converted NDisles in the MA currently, probably shows less than 50% potential of what the new terrains can really do if a map was really designed from scratch.
You realize that the majority of terrains in AH1 and in AH2 prior to the breakup of the MA were player generated, right?
Nonetheless, let's compare the NDisles terrains from the same three versions of the game. I set gamma (not adjustable in AH1) to 1.0 for 2.09 and 2.10. This gives the the most honest comparison possible by avoiding custom settings. The field is A18.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH1-111ndisles.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-209ndilses.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-210ndilses.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
so away I go with FesterMA2 it will be an ETO themed map and if it is a success I will then create Ozkansas2 a PTO map.
That's fantastic !!!
-
Now if they could just take the threee versions and somehow combine them all together.
It would look as stunning fromt eh air as it does from the ground
Widewing.
the second two pictures you posted point out exactly what I am trying to get at (in other threads) when I speak of subtle shadowing.
compare the last two pics and you can see subtle shadows that point out differences in terrain elevation. Sight rises and depressions
Bends at the bases of where the mountains come down and meet the almost sea level terrain. etc.
Perhaps someone who is good at photo shop can make the second photo alomst transparent and over lay it on top of the third.
I think you would end up with something truely stunning
-
MMMM square tent style VH's :)
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
so away I go with FesterMA2 it will be an ETO themed map and if it is a success I will then create Ozkansas2 a PTO map.
That's fantastic !!!
heres FesterMA2 under construction... all but maybe one or two airfields are placed where I want them. no GV fields added yet and only one port/cv placed.
after I have everything where I want it I will photoshop an elevation file with some USGS elevation greyscales in a few spots where able.
it wont have any texture layout or variation till the new terrain editor is available. all the land is just one big green blob right now :D
(http://p38fester.sitesled.com/festerMA2.jpg)
-
What's the min spacing on fields again?
I'd be deeply appreciative if you could have at least half the airfields at min spacing. It makes for much better fighting in the EW and to a slightly lesser extent the MW.
I could probably just say the closer the better for all fields and leave it at that.
-
about the same as the origional FesterMA no fields intended for linear base to base fighting are more than 25-27 miles apart and no bases are closer than 17-20 miles minimum. short hops. the target spacing was around 25 miles which is HT's prefered distance.
-
Abou the only problem I see is the placement of YELLOW HQ
At Paris
Problem is whichever country has the yellow area is sure to be without Dar on pretty short order.
considering the top two countries tend to like to gang up and over run whichever country is on the bottom.
You might want to consider moving Yellow HQ to Rome
Just a thought
another thought
If your going to leave it at Paris Perhaps you might want to place a couple of ammo factories very near it as to give it added protection
-
there will be a gv base that will be in front of it will be uncapturable and the large airbase behind it also uncapturable. I still have to figure out how to set them up with the little red outline. the thing can be rebuilt in 5 minutes till the map resets with those fixed bases so its not as critical a thing as it was in the olden days of aces high. it is intended for the yellow country to be the easiest to defeat though any country has a fair chance of being defeated. Im sure it will get bombed. I want it to. buffs will gravitate to it like moths to a light just to knock it down. if your up for a bit of roll playing its not far fetched to hope that that HQ will be enough to get constant organized bomber raids on berlin that are heavy enought to pretty much anticipate having to fly cap missions above it. :D
its hard to tell with all the distortion but the yellow HQ is actually sitting about where berlin was :D
-
I REALLY need to get back to work on ComSoPac.
You Europhiles. :p
-
Nonetheless, let's compare the NDisles terrains from the same three versions of the game. I set gamma (not adjustable in AH1) to 1.0 for 2.09 and 2.10. This gives the the most honest comparison possible by avoiding custom settings. The field is A18.
There are two things at work here.
One, is the issue concerning the brightness/contrast of the terrain textures, which I believe no one objects that it's gotta be fixed.
Two, is how each of the various features that makes up a 'terrain' is depicted by the terrain system itself, and in this aspect the changes between each of the three depiction methods are undoubtably for the better, not the worse.
Take a look, for example, some the pics NHawk posted. Old AH1 had a very simplistic method of depicting the terrains by crude, flat, polygons. The 'detail' and 'feel' of the terrains were entirely dependant on what kind of textures were used. The more 'photorealistic' the quality of textures, the better it looked at altitude, especially when you were looking at it from the exact angle which the 'photo' was taken at.
However, the moment you close in, get lower near the ground, all the "beauty" is entirely lost and it becomes nothing but a big mush of pictures viewed from a wrong angle. AH1 terrain is essentially a cardboard box glued with photos printed out from Google-EARTH.
Initial versions of AH2, upto the previous version, was an attempt to depict 3D terrains as the importance of the ground-war aspect of the game grew. AH became more and more of a "WW2-feel virtual war", instead of the simple A2A combat sim with a tad bit of territorial land-grab flavor.
The current terrain format as of this version, IMO is an attempt to maintain the principles laid out by the initial AH2 terrain scheme, while at the same time cleaning up and optimizing many of the issues that plagued it, with an added bonus to improving overall aesthetic quality of it both from the air, and land.
Somehwere along the way they made the same mistake as AH2 Beta, where the terrain texture was way too dark for most of the gamers. Another mistake is how the shadows of the forest/trees are handled, and many of the current terrains in the MA were designed in previous versions, and were simply converted to the new scheme.
However, these problems are relatively easily fixed, and once the fix and tweak is done, in the end the potential lying with this new terrain scheme is lightyears ahead of what we had in AH1. This, is something people viewing your pictures should not be confused about.
In the end, after the current problems are addressed, a player-designed map will ultimately reach much higher levels of aesthetic depiction, which IMO qualifies the 'evolution' of the AH terrains as "something for the better".
-
Hey Citabria I have a question. Is there anyway you can add "AAA Camps" to the map? Basically groups of 5-10 88mms off in the boonies with maybe 1-3 Field guns to protect them. The idea is for these Flak positions to give hell to incoming bomber raids to important areas.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You realize that the majority of terrains in AH1 and in AH2 prior to the breakup of the MA were player generated, right?
Nonetheless, let's compare the NDisles terrains from the same three versions of the game. I set gamma (not adjustable in AH1) to 1.0 for 2.09 and 2.10. This gives the the most honest comparison possible by avoiding custom settings. The field is A18.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH1-111ndisles.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-209ndilses.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/AH2-210ndilses.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
are these pics all in the game's daytime? the middle one looks most like hwat ya really see from the air. the third one looks like night time. not tryin to complain, just offering my opinion........
also read yanks comments.....i also do get watering eyes when i'm airborn for more than 30 minutes.....on the ground not as bad. but on the ground, i keep hitting hills that i never saw though...but like the other additions, like tank traps, berms around the ground guns etc........
-
cap1
"also read yanks comments.....i also do get watering eyes when i'm airborn for more than 30 minutes.....on the ground not as bad. but on the ground, i keep hitting hills that i never saw though...but like the other additions, like tank traps, berms around the ground guns etc........"
Yup, we are not alone, I have tweeked it as much as I can,...But! You know this is gonna get fixed, lighting textures,,,,, It's just gonna take time,,, and the game will be better then ever, and we will move forward as new maps are made useing the new textures and tiles and what ever other goodies they have for us.
Have you noticed Bish pilots bailing out over the sheep????? Whats that about?
-
Originally posted by CAP1
are these pics all in the game's daytime? the middle one looks most like hwat ya really see from the air. the third one looks like night time. not tryin to complain, just offering my opinion........
also read yanks comments.....i also do get watering eyes when i'm airborn for more than 30 minutes.....on the ground not as bad. but on the ground, i keep hitting hills that i never saw though...but like the other additions, like tank traps, berms around the ground guns etc........
Something really odd here if screen 3 looks to be night time...
WHat video card and drivers are you using? Pretty crazy if that shot looks like night and yet the game does as well....
I'm not sayin that the 3rd shot isn't slightly darker than the one above but on my system with gamma never touched and monitor not adjusted since before xmas .. its slightly darker not nighttime...
-
Originally posted by SKurj
Something really odd here if screen 3 looks to be night time...
WHat video card and drivers are you using? Pretty crazy if that shot looks like night and yet the game does as well....
I'm not sayin that the 3rd shot isn't slightly darker than the one above but on my system with gamma never touched and monitor not adjusted since before xmas .. its slightly darker not nighttime...
On my monitor I can easily distinguish ground details on the top two. On the bottom one, on my monitor, the ground is almost uniformly black (super dark green). When people say night time, I think they mean the ground looks like it would at night time, not the sky.
-
[
Have you noticed Bish pilots bailing out over the sheep????? Whats that about? [/B][/QUOTE]
i could name names, but in EW, i've been warned to not bother the sheep, as someone that's there on a regular basis would be very mad..and yes, they're bish:rofl
-
Originally posted by SKurj
Something really odd here if screen 3 looks to be night time...
WHat video card and drivers are you using? Pretty crazy if that shot looks like night and yet the game does as well....
I'm not sayin that the 3rd shot isn't slightly darker than the one above but on my system with gamma never touched and monitor not adjusted since before xmas .. its slightly darker not nighttime...
i'm using a geforce 6800gt, with some modified drivers i think 19.83 version.....they work good on all other things, in my normal email programs the screen is great.......i don't play any other games to vcompare though.....i also have my gamma somewhere around 1.9 to 2.2 set through the options menu in the game.........
-
Originally posted by 715
On my monitor I can easily distinguish ground details on the top two. On the bottom one, on my monitor, the ground is almost uniformly black (super dark green). When people say night time, I think they mean the ground looks like it would at night time, not the sky.
yes
-
The rendering of terrain is a significant resource hog during gameplay. You fly over a forest these days and frames start dropping cause there's a lot more detail in the new forests.
Moreover, to produce bright screen colors requires more hits on all the screen pixels - red, green and blue. That, one assumes, means that bright colored detailed objects are a greater resource hit than dark colored objects. Think of it like this – the max color resource hit for a graphics card is an all white object because you have to hit all the R-G-B pixels all the time, while the minimum color resource hit is all black because none of the pixels are hit any of the time. Graphics cards require more computing time for brighter objects. So if you have lots of bright objects, you have a graphic hit.
On top of that, when you increase the number of color variations of a terrain you take a further hit. Remember that several years ago there were a few dozen of what were called "html safe" colors that required a bare minimum of PC color resources. The idea is that if you start increasing the number of variations being displayed at one time then, again, your graphics card has to compute those colors and you increase resource requirements.
Looking at this all together, I'd guess the current release has increased terrain object detail at the expense to some degree of color and variation, all in the name of playability, and probably in view of CT. But there may be a compromise that could brighten things a bit more.
-
I'm just wondering, why the heck new terrain looks like Warbirds3 about 4-5 years ago?
I don't feel like flying anymore, is that HTC joke?.
HT are you testing your loyal customers?
-
The rendering of terrain is a significant resource hog during gameplay. You fly over a forest these days and frames start dropping cause there's a lot more detail in the new forests.
The forest is actually a less of a resource hog in the way they are handled.
Moreover, to produce bright screen colors requires more hits on all the screen pixels - red, green and blue. That, one assumes, means that bright colored detailed objects are a greater resource hit than dark colored objects. Think of it like this ?the max color resource hit for a graphics card is an all white object because you have to hit all the R-G-B pixels all the time, while the minimum color resource hit is all black because none of the pixels are hit any of the time. Graphics cards require more computing time for brighter objects. So if you have lots of bright objects, you have a graphic hit.
On top of that, when you increase the number of color variations of a terrain you take a further hit. Remember that several years ago there were a few dozen of what were called "html safe" colors that required a bare minimum of PC color resources. The idea is that if you start increasing the number of variations being displayed at one time then, again, your graphics card has to compute those colors and you increase resource requirements.
I may not be a graphics expert, but this is total nonsense.
Among some more than 60 thousand colors a graphics card can handle, a total black and total white pixel takes up as much 'resource' as it should. Any modern graphics card that can handle 32bit color settings is more than enough to run AH.
Looking at this all together, I'd guess the current release has increased terrain object detail at the expense to some degree of color and variation, all in the name of playability, and probably in view of CT. But there may be a compromise that could brighten things a bit more.
It's got nothing to do with performance issues. It's basically a combination of old-version terrains being converted flat-out, a lack of sufficient ambient lighting, and miscolored texture tiles.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
I'm just wondering, why the heck new terrain looks like Warbirds3 about 4-5 years ago?
I don't feel like flying anymore, is that HTC joke?.
HT are you testing your loyal customers?
its striking how much it does remind me of old warbirds from long ago hehe
but don't worry ramzey the issues are with the textures only. you have to understand the technology of the AH engine is derived from the same company that made the falcon 4.0 engine.
its only textures and bitmaps making it this dark not some sinister lighting problem...
don't believe me? go to the training arena real quick and you can see parts of the old terrain shining through in spots hehe.
i remember long ago waffle telling me he always used a boosted gamma. I think if this is the case I think he needs to use 1.0 gamma because hes not a player contributing art he is setting the standard for the art and gamma just alters that standard. I always thought HTC used the 1.0 gamma as their standard but i don't know anything.
its just a theory but it explains why all his stuff looks so dark. I know he likes dark skins and textures which is fine by me but the terrain needs to be bright and look like the sun is shining.
and I also understand about contrast and brightness for the terrain I have built arenas before and am very concientious of eye strain because I have astigmatism and am very suceptable to it.
but understand its the sky+ the terrain and large drastic change between the two is hard on the eyes.
in my mind terrain textures need to be bright but have subdued contrast. that means consistently bright across the board and matching the sky.
but i rambled off...
the 3d objects for the terrain are fantastic they are gorgeous and fully europified and accurate for the time period.
only problem is the textures and guess what... HTC allows map makers to change textures on their maps :D
but I may not have to from what it seems waffle said he would at least "change the tiles a little bit" in future patches.
I am hard core about terrain tiles and I know what I like and what I don't so this may or may not be enough for my tastes. if it is excellent... if not thats fine too I am building a main arena right now and will texture it myself either way even if its not necessary just to make the terrain unique.
-
I'd like to know how things could be more Europified than they already were, other than removing the Blue Planes outright. :p
-
I plan on making two main arena's saxman :D
I havent forgotten about the origional ah1 version of ozkansas and I still miss it :)
this eto map will have alterred textures but wont need new 3d objects like palm trees like a pacific map would and since they are nto allowing custom 3d objects there is only one option.. ETO or bust hehe
-
Originally posted by ramzey
I'm just wondering, why the heck new terrain looks like Warbirds3 about 4-5 years ago?
I don't feel like flying anymore, is that HTC joke?.
HT are you testing your loyal customers?
i don't think i'd go that far......i do realize it needs tweaking(as yanksfan has repeatedly mentioned)
think we all just need to offer CONSTRUCTIVE critisim, and inpput so they can do this as fsast as possible.....before we all go blind from tryin to miss the hills and trees.
btw...i messed with gamma, brightness and contrast in my vid card's (geforce 6800gt 256mb) software.....improved slightly............no headaches or watery eyes now. still no depth perception either though.
-
So much complaining so little time. Thats how it seems around here lately.
I for one welcome the new changes but would agree a little lightening could help.
Change is the way of things people, otherwise Bush may get elected again.
-
but don't worry ramzey the issues are with the textures only. you have to understand the technology of the AH engine is derived from the same company that made the falcon 4.0 engine.
Where did you get that Idea.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Where did you get that Idea.
Its funny you should ask.
I posted this thread (link below) exactly three years ago to the day arguing what would turn into a request to allow players to contribute 3d artwork to Aces High
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114256&highlight=liberator
So three years ago in april 2004 I bought 3dstudioMax6 for the nonstudent street price of around 2000 dollars.
I started building a B-24D liberator hoping I could get it built well enough to have it used in Aces High. This was shortly before a b24 was actually added however I believe it was being talked about at the time.
So I built a B-24 3d model and posted asking if it could be used in Aces High.
here are the posts from myself and Hitech from that conversation...
Originally posted by Citabria
this is a 3d studio max 3d model i am building........
....I am wondering is this somthing that could be usable in ah2 if built to HTC specifications?
Originally posted by hitech
Wouldn't be of any use Citabria.
HiTEch
Originally posted by Citabria
rgr ht,
would it be possible to supprt 3dsmax6 for terrain editing the 3d objects on the terrain tiles though?
Originally posted by hitech
Not realy cit .
HiTech
further down in this thread (skipped some irellevant parts)...
Originally posted by Citabria
heres the basic situation and its likely technical problems that make it nonworkable.
you have an outsider (me) wanting to help build a complex piece
of art that requires insider(HTC) information and techniques to
realize and deliver in finished form to the community (Aces High)
for my part I am willing to learn whatever system, specifications,
limits or details that will make this possible within the contraints
of the problems I just mentioned.
so the question really is what would be HTC's reasons for making
it possible for an outsider to help build a part of a 3d aircraft.
the possible reasons for allowing such a thing would be:
- the recent work done by the players in skinning the aircraft and
tanks. several players have done fantastic work on this small part
of the game and made it more enjoyable for themselves and for
others bringing a level of detail to the work they did that is very
high quality.
- with 50 aircraft to remodel, the backlog for superfly and
natedog can be measured in years.
- the level of reasearch and fanatical attention to detail in the
work done by a player (me) in other areas such as terrain making
and texture skinning along with currently posted pics of 3d work
started days ago would put to rest any worries about the model
not being accurate. especially given the fact thatthe player
looked at plan view drawings of the actual liberator and judged
them to be inaccurate and modified the model accordingly from
photo references.
some possible reasons for not allowing such a thing:
- the software is incompatible and trying to get two different
pieces of software to interact when not designed to do so is
more trouble than its worth. (most likely)
-as a strict matter of professionalism it is good practice to keep all
complex artwork such as 3d modelling in house to maintain
uniformity and quality intact.
-we want to do it ourselves and do not want any help.
- we dont want models made with nonlicensed software
(btw my 3dsmax6 is paid for and its not a student copy and it
was not cheap)
Originally posted by hitech
The level of dificulty between producing a finished 3d game model and a skin is night and day. It's not that I don't belive that there are not any players capable, but just puting the spec's required is a significant undertaking.
When ever we have thought about it, we have come to the conlusion that it would take just as much time trying to use someone else model vs building it ourselfs.
So it is none of your above for your resones cit.
HiTech
Originally posted by Citabria
rgr ht
would be a great challenge to try it but i understand.
after that conversation over the next month or two I kept persisting in my case to allow player made 3dartwork. understanding that my 3d software wouldn't work I returned it before the return policy expired and got my money back.
I started looking into the actual software used to build Aces High 3d art and considered purchasing a copy. understand this was before HTC would allow anything 3d and player made before HT decided to make it possible to use the free AC3d program.
I called HTC and asked: "what software do you guys use?"
they replied: "Multigen"
so there I was three years ago looking at MULTIGEN plastered with pics of what looks identical to falcon4.0
http://www.multigen.com/products/standards/openflight/index.shtml
multigen is a powerful software that at least 3 years ago HTC was using to produce Aces High. from what I understand it is not just 3d editing it is a realtime image generator as well. to me this means what we see in Aces High is derived from this program.
and there in HT is your answer at the multigen openflight website. the f16 pics look like falcon4.0 and therein I figured it was falcon 4.0 because it looks so similar.
(http://www.multigen.com/products/standards/openflight/images/mainpic.jpg)
(http://www.multigen.com/products/standards/openflight/images/more_1.jpg)
OpenFlight, MultiGen-Paradigm's native 3D content is the leading visual database standard in the world and has become the defacto standard format in the visual simulation industry. OpenFlight's logical, hierarchical scene description file format informs the realtime image generator what, when, and how to render, resulting in realtime 3D scenes with unmatched precision and reliability. Developers will enjoy its flexibility, open connectivity and easy interoperability along with advanced realtime functions, including:
Levels of detail (LOD)
Culling volumes
Switch Nodes
Drawing priority
Binary separating planes
All of these benefits and more make OpenFlight the most widely adopted image generator format in realtime 3D visualization.
and here we are three years later.
I am thankful that you decided to allow player made 3d artwork :)
-
I am wrong HiTech.
I assumed the f16's were from falcon 4.0 three years ago.
looking closer at them they look to good to be falcon 4.0
here is a pic that is from falcon4.0 for comparison...
(http://members.ozemail.com.au/~gallant/images/falcon4a.jpg)
-
so away I go with FesterMA2 it will be an ETO themed map and if it is a success I will then create Ozkansas2 a PTO map.
WoooooHOoooooo Thanks Fester!!!!! I can't wait!!!!
OZK Rocked!!!!!
-
I must be the odd man out because I think the new terrain looks sweet.
-
the terrain looks awsome its the darkness of the terrain and the loss of depth perception at the limited variety of colors that is making it unliked by some dweebs like myself.
the 3d part of the new terrain and the hedgerows and the windmills and details and new tree designs look excellent.
-
Multigen is a 3d modelling program (like 3D Studio, etc), not a game engine. HT made our game engine from scratch.
-
thx superfly for clarifying that.
ever since three years ago I thought HT bought the engine from multigen and that was the reason multigen was so necessarry with all its specific features to make the 3d aircraft and why other 3d programs could not be used.
Superfly,
would you be willing to comment any word on the terrain darkness? will it be lightened up the way ah2 beta tiles were when they were very dark?
-
Originally posted by SUPERFLY
Multigen is a 3d modelling program (like 3D Studio, etc), not a game engine. HT made our game engine from scratch.
Also seems very bespoke (proprietary)... How come you guys don't just use 3DSMax or something?
-
I'd like any info if something is going to be done to improve the current settings please.
-
From those pictures we've been moving backward through time. AHI looks the best of all of them.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
From those pictures we've been moving backward through time. AHI looks the best of all of them.
It wasn't.
Graphic quality impressively improved when AH1 became AH2.
-
From those pictures we've been moving backward through time. AHI looks the best of all of them.
Looks can be deceiving :)
-
Now i miss ah1 too... it was better in many respects, however so is the last AH2 version. They should be frankensteined. That good old tent VH outside the base almost brought tears to my eyes :D
Oh and i REALLY miss Pizza map
-
OK...
I'll say it... the terrain evolution is proving that HTC cannot keep up with the advances in the coding etc with the actual building (updating) of terrains.
Perhaps another staff member is needed to help get the terrains of a much higher quality. Besides the current issue of brightness (or lack of it) I think we all have encountered other bugs/issues with the terrains. Another staff member dedicated to just terrains might make a world of difference. As it is terrains/maps seem an afterthought.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
OK...
I'll say it... the terrain evolution is proving that HTC cannot keep up with the advances in the coding etc with the actual building (updating) of terrains.
Perhaps another staff member is needed to help get the terrains of a much higher quality. Besides the current issue of brightness (or lack of it) I think we all have encountered other bugs/issues with the terrains. Another staff member dedicated to just terrains might make a world of difference. As it is terrains/maps seem an afterthought.
I don't think that's necessary skurj.
The only way to get that kind of insane quality and detail free from the constraints of business production and economics is for certifiably insane detail freaks like me or kanttori or anyone that has the patience, gameplay insight and graphics knowledge to execute a main arena terrain to volunteer to do it.
the terrain engine is far enough along to do that hopefully. I started this terrain a few days ago and its still in the basic base layout phase. terrain shapes are basically in place its a warped and distorted map of europe contorted to fit in a main arena
btw this terrain will have new tiles as well and its gv base routes and CV groups are not finished!
[edit: added green possible gv base routes and red country borders]
(http://p38fester.sitesled.com/festerMA2_4_18_07.jpg)
-
looking good fester :) 11,11 along western gridline...airstrip maybe?
-
no that will be a mountain divider for gameplay purposes. the northwest country will have a battlefield with the east country on one side of themountains and the south country will have a battle field with the eats country on the other side of that open area that will be very mountainous.
the goal is to have everythign converge on that city that the GV bases lead to for maximum chaos.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
I don't think that's necessary skurj.
The only way to get that kind of insane quality and detail free from the constraints of business production and economics is for certifiably insane detail freaks like me or kanttori or anyone that has the patience, gameplay insight and graphics knowledge to execute a main arena terrain to volunteer to do it.
the terrain engine is far enough along to do that hopefully. I started this terrain a few days ago and its still in the basic base layout phase. terrain shapes are basically in place its a warped and distorted map of europe contorted to fit in a main arena
btw this terrain will have new tiles as well and its gv base routes and CV groups are not finished!
[edit: added green possible gv base routes and red country borders]
(http://p38fester.sitesled.com/festerMA2_4_18_07.jpg)
what about the far right country having a coastline/port in Greece... that way there will be some action in the med.... or do you already have this planned? looking good, although balancing this would be hard work!
I like the idea of the GV spawn points battleing it out in main cities to reach the HQ.... kinda like the real thing. :aok
-
put the squid back in!!!! :aok :aok
i want to bomb it :D :noid
all
~VansCrew~
-
I got tired of balanced terrains they are stagnant and the front never moves.
I started this intending that the country on the german side would be at the greatest disadvantage. however I think any country will have a shot at a victory even the german side.
I am contemplating having no spawn points at all on the map so the ground war will crystalize along the gv base routes which are no more than 5 miles apart... at most a 12 minute drive in a panzer or tiger or sherman, 8.5 minute drive in a t34, 5.5 minute drive in a m3/m16 or 5 minute drive in an m8. but with the ground war enthusiasts concentrated in this area the ground fights will be more intense the way tank town fights are but without havign a fixed tank town but a front that moves along the route from one coutries HQ to the others.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
I got tired of balanced terrains they are stagnant and the front never moves.
I started this intending that the country on the german side would be at the greatest disadvantage. however I think any country will have a shot at a victory even the german side.
I am contemplating having no spawn points at all on the map so the ground war will crystalize along the gv base routes which are no more than 5 miles apart... at most a 12 minute drive in a panzer or tiger or sherman, 8.5 minute drive in a t34, 5.5 minute drive in a m3/m16 or 5 minute drive in an m8. but with the ground war enthusiasts concentrated in this area the ground fights will be more intense the way tank town fights are but without havign a fixed tank town but a front that moves along the route from one coutries HQ to the others.
sounds great.... spawns can be camped, Vbases cant really be camped... Nice "new" idea (i think u did something simuler with festerMA?)
-
Originally posted by SUPERFLY
HT made our game engine from scratch.
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/flamotte/monkhead.jpg)
-
yes and in ozkansas. I loved the results. I found it to be the most enjoyable way to fight in the GV's. I will be able to have a solid road from one countries HQ to the others because all the supply roads will connect each being about 5 miles or so.
with this small map I can make a GV war on a more epic scale instead of wasting time energy and real estate on a 512 map with areas that will never get to be fought on much. If I am allowd to I will add small towns (individual structure objects in the Terrain editor tied to the nearest gv base) halfway between many gv bases along the route of the ground war, I have two cities for each country all placed along the ground war route because they can't be resupplied thus they can be in close proximity to gv bases without causing resupply imbalances.
basically I want a tank town environment that propels the strategic war forward.
[edit: reposted map pic for new thread page]
(http://p38fester.sitesled.com/festerMA2_4_18_07.jpg)
-
The new water looks like it should have dead bodies in it...the new terrain looks like burnt grass its so dark...i hate it....AH1 was much better
-
Originally posted by Citabria
I got tired of balanced terrains they are stagnant and the front never moves.
I started this intending that the country on the german side would be at the greatest disadvantage. however I think any country will have a shot at a victory even the german side.
I am contemplating having no spawn points at all on the map so the ground war will crystalize along the gv base routes which are no more than 5 miles apart... at most a 12 minute drive in a panzer or tiger or sherman, 8.5 minute drive in a t34, 5.5 minute drive in a m3/m16 or 5 minute drive in an m8. but with the ground war enthusiasts concentrated in this area the ground fights will be more intense the way tank town fights are but without havign a fixed tank town but a front that moves along the route from one coutries HQ to the others.
i think it was the donut map, with the long lines of vbase's,was awsum to have a couple hundred gv'ers rolling back and forth thru the valleys, one gv battle on that map could last days.
If you could recreate that kind of battle, you would not only be my hero, but when the mother ship arrives your name will be found amoung those on the protected list.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
.... stuff...
Step away from the coffee jar fester!
-
Originally posted by yanksfan
i think it was the donut map, with the long lines of vbase's,was awsum to have a couple hundred gv'ers rolling back and forth thru the valleys, one gv battle on that map could last days.
Yep it was, and that were some wonderful battles. Especially since the airfields were located so far away, that a real ground battle could evolve, as fe people bothered to fly long distances.
-
I appreciate what HT has done with the new terrain...i too am not sure if it was a great improvement but i think it shows that they care about trying to improve the game...for this i give them a lot of respect:aok :aok
my one request is that the new forests are even more horrible to drive thru...in a real forest the vegetation in the middle should be sparse and only dense on the edges....would love to see that addressed.... right now the new forests feel more like a maze than a forest.
-
Love it Fester, love it. One thing I might add would be Iceland in the upper NW corner. I would make it very small, perhaps with just one small field and a port for an additional ship group, which wouldn't necessarily be just for CV's. Some of the other maps in the CT or in the SEA have the cruiser groups, which I think would be a fun addition to an MA map. They wouldn't get decimated at the first sight by suicide dweebs and I think would make for a lot of fun in supporting amphibious ops and screening carrier groups.
Can't wait to see how it turns out, carry on.
:aok
-
An Isolated Fighter Town would be cool too.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
btw this terrain will have new tiles as well and its gv base routes and CV groups are not finished!
[edit: added green possible gv base routes and red country borders]
Why waste your time if we can't use big maps, which this looks like?
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Why waste your time if we can't use big maps, which this looks like?
It's not, it's a 256 x 256 map. You can tell by the sector numbers starting in 6,5.
The only question I have is will this fly with HT? I understand what you're trying to accomplish but balanced sides have been a requirement for forever. And this map has the potential for making mass side switching even worse than it is now. I doubt that anyone would want to be in the NW corner of the map.
I DO like the concept though.
-
I switch sides all the time.
-
Originally posted by NHawk
It's not, it's a 256 x 256 map. You can tell by the sector numbers starting in 6,5.
The only question I have is will this fly with HT? I understand what you're trying to accomplish but balanced sides have been a requirement for forever. And this map has the potential for making mass side switching even worse than it is now. I doubt that anyone would want to be in the NW corner of the map.
I DO like the concept though.
HT gave up on balanced sides a while back, why demand balanced maps? If someone wants to design a map (especially someone like fester who's made several with good success) and try something new, why not let him? I find it hard to believe that a map has to be balanced, when the numbers of players are not.
I say give it a shot. Worst that will happen is people will switch arenas or whine. No biggie, doesn't cost HTC a cent either way.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
I don't think that's necessary skurj.
The only way to get that kind of insane quality and detail free from the constraints of business production and economics is for certifiably insane detail freaks like me or kanttori or anyone that has the patience, gameplay insight and graphics knowledge to execute a main arena terrain to volunteer to do it.
QUOTE]
You don't?
So by the time you get this one finished we will have 1 terrain out of how many fit for the arenas... and how many left to update?
I came back to the game after more than a year mebbe closer to 2 I forget... anyways the terrains haven't changed... same maps, with the same sorta bugs we had back then.
-
I don't think it will take me long at all to finish the terrain. it will take me a good while to make the textures and layout the textures on the map with this archaic ah2 terrain system with its little quadrangulated miny tiles.
I've had the idea of making one terrain with 3 seasons for a long time... ie one terrain with three textures (summer or spring, fall, winter) so in a way 3 maps in rotation for the price of one. but like i said making the arena is the easy part.... decorating it so it is user friendly with basic necesities like a simulation of sunlight hitting the ground and depth perception is the hard part or so it would seem for some people.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
My friedns, this is a proof that...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
A HA! Brilliant!
-
Has it occurred to anyone that the new terrains might be a compromise for those who's frames die near the ground? What's the point of awesome terrains if they preculde actually PLAYING the game?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Has it occurred to anyone that the new terrains might be a compromise for those who's frames die near the ground? What's the point of awesome terrains if they preculde actually PLAYING the game?
Actually I noticed that my frames are worse near the ground now then they were before.
Pardon me. I mean worse when near trees now then they were near trees before.
By trees I mean forrest and not the lone carrot sprout you see here and there
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Has it occurred to anyone that the new terrains might be a compromise for those who's frames die near the ground? What's the point of awesome terrains if they preculde actually PLAYING the game?
:huh huh?
-
one terrain with three textures (summer or spring, fall, winter)
Finally! :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I noticed that my frames are worse near the ground now then they were before.
Pardon me. I mean worse when near trees now then they were near trees before.
By trees I mean forrest and not the lone carrot sprout you see here and there
I posted something in the bug forum about this, that the game stutters pretty badly for me since the updates, especially near the ground. even though it says I'm still getting 70+ FPS... strange.
-
To all those that said OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW
AH1 was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO much better
Thinking back on it, I suppose I should have kept my mouth shut...
Thinking back on it, I suppose the new trees really are quite vivid and life like...
Thinking back on it, I suppose the fact that Super suddenly went quiet was a big sign that I had stepped on his toes...
Thinking back on it, I suppose I should not have stood, looking out the only open window in his office. Suggesting that the new trees would look better if the were the same tones as the ones across the road in the park.
And yes Thinking back on it, I suppose when he said "Ya think so, why don't you take a closer look"
Well I guess I should have ducked...
Yet as I slid from the roof and fell past the front office windows into the large and rather well thorned rose bush below, I still could not believe that he threw his monitor at the back of my head....
Sorry ppl but I remeber playing games on the C-64 that were SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cool and had SUCH great graphics.....
Right up to the point where I found an emulator and some roms and went Oh so it was CRAP.....
EDIT: Super, Waffle and Nate (yeah I know he moved on to greener pastures, Pun intended) the new terrain looks...
FAR
KEN
B
U
T
FULL
Sorry skuzzy but it had to be said.....
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
put the squid back in!!!! :aok :aok
i want to bomb it :D :noid
all
~VansCrew~
Oh Yeah and what he said